If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

View Poll Results: What did Jesus mean by this statement? "standing in the Holy Place"

Voters

12. You may not vote on this poll

the Antichrist will take his seat in God's temple, a rebuilt Jewish temple

541.67%

the Antichrist will in effect declare himself to be God, though not in a physical temple

541.67%

the Roman Army will stand in the gates of Jerusalem, besieging the city

"standing in the Holy Place?"

"standing in the Holy Place"
What did Jesus mean by this statement?
1) the Antichrist will take his seat in God's temple, a rebuilt Jewish temple
2) the Antichrist will in effect declare himself to be God, though not in a physical temple
3) the Roman Army will stand in the gates of Jerusalem, besieging the city
4) the Roman Army actually stood inside Jerusalem, destroying the temple
5) the Romans abused the temple tax
6) the Jewish People abused the temple

Jesus warned that when this event was observed by his disciples, they should flee, or escape.

There are a number of interpretations here, and the discussion has been highly charged at times. It's all been discussed before--lots of times. However, my wish here is to calm the accusations, and recognize that there are a number of ways to look at this--legitimate ways.

I think all 3 views of who the AoD (Abomination that cause Desolation) is have an old history. I think Josephus mentioned the Jewish abuses in the temple prior to 70 AD, amounting to an abomination in the temple. The Church Fathers mentioned both Antichrist and Rome as candidates for the AoD. I personally think the strongest argument, and the earliest one, is that the Roman Army is the AoD. But I stand to be corrected?

The argument I've been personally having concerns the point at which Jesus' disciples were to reconize the AoD "standing in the holy place?" For example, if the Roman Army was to be observed as "standing in the holy place," wouldn't that mean that the Romans had already penetrated the walls, and it was too late to escape?

I really don't know. Perhaps Jesus' disciples in the countryside would have time *after* the 70 AD penetration of the temple to run for the hills? In history, however, when Jesus' disciples saw the Roman Army initially arrive in 66 AD, they were able to escape to Pella *before* the Roman Army entered into Jerusalem proper, and *before* the temple was destroyed. So why would Jesus tell them to wait until they actually entered into the city to escape?

I don't know. It's a good question. However, I don't see how the Antichrist could be in the picture when in the Olivet Discourse the primary focus of Jesus is upon the Jewish People, and upon their imminent fate at the hands of the Romans. The Luke 21 account makes this unmistakeably clear, in my thinking. However, some think that Luke 21 is separate from the same Discourse in Matthew 24 and Mark 13. That is unthinkable to me!

It is also possible, in my thinking, to believe that "standing in the holy place" could refer to a return of the Roman Army to Jerusalem, repositioning themselves as guardians in the city. This would, in a sense, make them take a "stand in the holy place." In other words, they were in the vicinity, assuming their long-held authority *within* the holy city.

There is no question that the pagan Romans were an "abomination" to the Jewish People. And there is no question that they were the ones to "desolate" the city and the sanctuary, as Daniel 9 indicated. So as far as I'm concerned, there is no question that the Roman Army was in fact the AoD in Jesus' Olivet Discourse. But here's one more chance to state your view, if you wish?

Re: "standing in the Holy Place?"

Overall i just don't understand your position, because i don't think you believe anything in the book of Daniel pertains to 70 AD. According to you the AoD in Daniel 11-12 happened with A4E. You also claim the 70 weeks in Daniel 9 was fulfilled during the life and death of Christ and the time period (70 weeks) is unbroken with No Gap. So for me i don't know what passage you believe Jesus is referring to when he states "spoken of by the prophet Daniel", what passage do you believe he is referring to?

Re: "standing in the Holy Place?"

Originally Posted by Jesuslovesus

So for me i don't know what passage you believe Jesus is referring to when he states "spoken of by the prophet Daniel", what passage do you believe he is referring to?

Exactly. And that is a major point. But I wouldn't ask what passage though, as in only one, but what passages were Jesus referring to in the book of Daniel. Apparently some can't seem to grasp how some of those visions are connecting with one another through multiple chapters in Daniel.

Re: "standing in the Holy Place?"

Originally Posted by randyk

"standing in the Holy Place"
What did Jesus mean by this statement?
1) the Antichrist will take his seat in God's temple, a rebuilt Jewish temple
2) the Antichrist will in effect declare himself to be God, though not in a physical temple
3) the Roman Army will stand in the gates of Jerusalem, besieging the city
4) the Roman Army actually stood inside Jerusalem, destroying the temple
5) the Romans abused the temple tax
6) the Jewish People abused the temple

Jesus warned that when this event was observed by his disciples, they should flee, or escape.

There are a number of interpretations here, and the discussion has been highly charged at times. It's all been discussed before--lots of times. However, my wish here is to calm the accusations, and recognize that there are a number of ways to look at this--legitimate ways.

I think all 3 views of who the AoD (Abomination that cause Desolation) is have an old history. I think Josephus mentioned the Jewish abuses in the temple prior to 70 AD, amounting to an abomination in the temple. The Church Fathers mentioned both Antichrist and Rome as candidates for the AoD. I personally think the strongest argument, and the earliest one, is that the Roman Army is the AoD. But I stand to be corrected?

The argument I've been personally having concerns the point at which Jesus' disciples were to reconize the AoD "standing in the holy place?" For example, if the Roman Army was to be observed as "standing in the holy place," wouldn't that mean that the Romans had already penetrated the walls, and it was too late to escape?

I really don't know. Perhaps Jesus' disciple in the countryside would have time *after* the 70 AD penetration of the temple to run for the hills? In history, however, when Jesus' disciples saw the Roman Army initially arrive in 66 AD, they were able to escape to Pella *before* the Roman Army entered into Jerusalem proper, and *before* the temple was destroyed. So why would Jesus tell them to wait until they actually entered into the city to escape?

I don't know. It's a good question. However, I don't see how the Antichrist could be in the picture when in the Olivet Discourse the primary focus of Jesus is upon the Jewish People, and upon their imminent fate at the hands of the Romans. The Luke 21 account makes this unmistakeably clear, in my thinking. However, some think that Luke 21 is separate from the same Discourse in Matthew 24 and Mark 13. That is unthinkable to me!

It is also possible, in my thinking, to believe that "standing in the holy place" could refer to a return of the Roman Army to Jerusalem, repositioning themselves as guardians in the city. This would, in a sense, make them take a "stand in the holy place." In other words, they were in the vicinity, assuming their long-held authority *within* the holy city.

There is no question that the pagan Romans were an "abomination" to the Jewish People. And there is no question that they were the ones to "desolate" the city and the sanctuary, as Daniel 9 indicated. So as far as I'm concerned, there is no question that the Roman Army was in fact the AoD in Jesus' Olivet Discourse. But here's one more chance to state your view, if you wish?

I couldn't vote because I believe that it was the Roman army surrounding the city and then retreating in 66AD and you don't have that option. This was the chance for the Christians to leave the city after that window of time it would be too late as the verses below reveal to us what it was.

Matthew 24:15-19
15 “So when you see standing in the holy place ‘the abomination that causes desolation’ spoken of through the prophet Daniel—let the reader understand— 16 then let those who are in Judea flee to the mountains. 17 Let no one on the housetop go down to take anything out of the house. 18 Let no one in the field go back to get their cloak. 19 How dreadful it will be in those days for pregnant women and nursing mothers!

Luke 21:20-23
20 “When you see Jerusalem being surrounded by armies, you will know that its desolation is near. 21 Then let those who are in Judea flee to the mountains, let those in the city get out, and let those in the country not enter the city. 22 For this is the time of punishment in fulfillment of all that has been written. 23 How dreadful it will be in those days for pregnant women and nursing mothers! There will be great distress in the land and wrath against this people

Re: "standing in the Holy Place?"

I obviously just wasted my time putting the following together, but even so, I'll submit it anyway. For food for thought at least, for those willing to think outside of the box every now and then.

Matthew 24:15 When ye therefore shall see the abomination of desolation, spoken of by Daniel the prophet, stand(histemi) in the holy place, (whoso readeth, let him understand: )

stand......histemi
his'-tay-mee
a prolonged form of a primary stao stah'-o (of the same meaning, and used for it in certain tenses); to stand (transitively or intransitively), used in various applications (literally or figuratively):--abide, appoint, bring, continue, covenant, establish, hold up,
lay, present, set (up), stanch, stand (by, forth, still, up). Compare tiqhmi - tithemi 5087.

Daniel 11:31 And arms shall stand(amad) on his part, and they shall pollute the sanctuary of strength, and shall take away the daily sacrifice, and they shall place the abomination that maketh desolate.

Daniel 11:33 And they that understand among the people shall instruct many: yet they shall fall by the sword, and by flame, by captivity, and by spoil, many days.

This perhaps explains why they should flee to the mountains at the time, because by not doing so, they instead shall fall by the sword, and by flame, by captivity, and by spoil, many days. Compare that with the following in Luke 21 and also in Revelation 11.

Luke 21:24 And they shall fall by the edge of the sword, and shall be led away captive into all nations: and Jerusalem shall be trodden down of the Gentiles, until the times of the Gentiles be fulfilled.

Revelation 11:2 But the court which is without the temple leave out, and measure it not; for it is given unto the Gentiles: and the holy city shall they tread under foot forty and two months.

The following shows that unbelieving Jews are not meant when having to flee to the mountains. Even if the fleeing to the mountains means to literal mountains, it would not be unbelieving Jews that the following would be referring to.

Daniel 11:35 And some of them of understanding shall fall, to try them, and to purge, and to make them white, even to the time of the end: because it is yet for a time appointed.
Daniel 12:10 Many shall be purified, and made white, and tried; but the wicked shall do wickedly: and none of the wicked shall understand; but the wise shall understand.

What I conclude from the above, very little of it, if any at all, is actually involving much of anything literal. No literal mountains to flee to, nor any literal cities and literal temples involved. Unbelieving Jews would not possess the understanding meant here. Nor is it the unbelieving Jews who are being purified, and made white, and tried, it would be those who confess to be members of the church whom this is applying to.

Revelation 18:4 And I heard another voice from heaven, saying, Come out of her, my people, that ye be not partakers of her sins, and that ye receive not of her plagues.

IMO this seems to be the desolation this leads to in the end.

Revelation 18:18 And cried when they saw the smoke of her burning, saying, What city is like unto this great city!
19 And they cast dust on their heads, and cried, weeping and wailing, saying, Alas, alas, that great city, wherein were made rich all that had ships in the sea by reason of her costliness! for in one hour is she made desolate.

But if one insists these prophecies in the Discourse can only be understood properly when taking everything in the literal sense, that person and I will never be on the same page then. Which may or may not be a good thing, depending who is closer to the truth here.

Re: "standing in the Holy Place?"

Originally Posted by divaD

Exactly. And that is a major point. But I wouldn't ask what passage though, as in only one, but what passages were Jesus referring to in the book of Daniel. Apparently some can't seem to grasp how some of those visions are connecting with one another through multiple chapters in Daniel.

I see it as what Jesus was saying what the OAD was in Daniel (what AE did) would happen again but this time by the Romans

Re: "standing in the Holy Place?"

Originally Posted by marty fox

I see it as what Jesus was saying what the OAD was in Daniel (what AE did) would happen again but this time by the Romans

What puzzles me about someone such as yourself is this. You also being Amil means a lot of things we Premils take literally at times, you don't. And here I am in my last post not taking some things literally that you apparently are, and that I'm not the Amil here, you are. You would think if anyone grasped any the points I was attempting to make in my last post, it would be Amils that would.

Re: "standing in the Holy Place?"

Originally Posted by Jesuslovesus

Overall i just don't understand your position, because i don't think you believe anything in the book of Daniel pertains to 70 AD. According to you the AoD in Daniel 11-12 happened with A4E. You also claim the 70 weeks in Daniel 9 was fulfilled during the life and death of Christ and the time period (70 weeks) is unbroken with No Gap. So for me i don't know what passage you believe Jesus is referring to when he states "spoken of by the prophet Daniel", what passage do you believe he is referring to?

JLU, I do believe that Dan 9 speaks of the Roman Army, where in vs. 27 it mentions the "abomination that causes desolation." The 70 Weeks themselves are unbroken, and they do end with the ministry and death of Messiah. However, what follows the 70 Weeks is this "desolation of the city and the sanctuary," brought about by the "people of the prince to come." This is the Roman Army who, in 70 AD, destroyed both Jerusalem and the temple.

In other words, according to Dan 9 the 70th Week ends in a half week, in the 3.5 years of Christ's ministry. He is cut off in the "midst of the Week," indicating that the 70th Week ends in the middle of the Week. It is not long after this that the city and the sanctuary are destroyed, as indicated in vss. 26 and 27. The "abomination that causes desolation," ie the Roman Army, brings this about.

Re: "standing in the Holy Place?"

Originally Posted by divaD

Exactly. And that is a major point. But I wouldn't ask what passage though, as in only one, but what passages were Jesus referring to in the book of Daniel. Apparently some can't seem to grasp how some of those visions are connecting with one another through multiple chapters in Daniel.

David, please see my response to JLU. I do believe the AoD Jesus referred to is in Dan 9.27. There is another AoD mentioned by Daniel, which can make it confusing. But that AoD refers to Antiochus 4 who figures prominently in chs. 8 and 11. He becomes, I think, a kind of foreshadow of Antichrist. But for me, ch. 9 refers to the Roman Army as the AoD Jesus referred to.

And if Antiochus 4 was a forerunner of Antichrist, then so is the Roman desolation of Jerusalem in 70 AD. Antichrist will "take his seat in the temple of God proclaiming himself to be God." What Antiochus 4 and the Roman Army had in common with Antichrist is the brazen willingness to deal with God's holy things in a violent way. Antichrist will do the same to the Church of God, assuming God's authority over God's People.

Re: "standing in the Holy Place?"

Originally Posted by marty fox

I couldn't vote because I believe that it was the Roman army surrounding the city and then retreating in 66AD and you don't have that option. This was the chance for the Christians to leave the city after that window of time it would be too late as the verses below reveal to us what it was.

Actually, Marty, that was meant to be option 3, the Roman Army standing within the gates of Jerusalem. At that point they were, in a sense, within Jerusalem as an attacking army. I've even heard that they managed to break through the wall, but did not pursue the invasion any further.

Originally Posted by marty fox

Matthew 24:15-19
15 “So when you see standing in the holy place ‘the abomination that causes desolation’ spoken of through the prophet Daniel—let the reader understand— 16 then let those who are in Judea flee to the mountains. 17 Let no one on the housetop go down to take anything out of the house. 18 Let no one in the field go back to get their cloak. 19 How dreadful it will be in those days for pregnant women and nursing mothers!

Luke 21:20-23
20 “When you see Jerusalem being surrounded by armies, you will know that its desolation is near. 21 Then let those who are in Judea flee to the mountains, let those in the city get out, and let those in the country not enter the city. 22 For this is the time of punishment in fulfillment of all that has been written. 23 How dreadful it will be in those days for pregnant women and nursing mothers! There will be great distress in the land and wrath against this people

I can't understand how anyone can't see them being the same event

Absolutely! I refuse to get bogged down in the difference between whether the Roman Army "stood in the holy place" in 66 AD or in 70 AD. The point is, the Roman Army approached the city of Jerusalem, and tried to reestablish their authority there, to put down the Jewish rebellion. They "stood in the holy place," whether that was literally inside the temple, or simply on the outskirts of the city. They came into the city to do battle, even if initially, they chose to withdraw.

Re: "standing in the Holy Place?"

I obviously just wasted my time putting the following together, but even so, I'll submit it anyway. For food for thought at least, for those willing to think outside of the box every now and then.

Matthew 24:15 When ye therefore shall see the abomination of desolation, spoken of by Daniel the prophet, stand(histemi) in the holy place, (whoso readeth, let him understand: )

stand......histemi
his'-tay-mee
a prolonged form of a primary stao stah'-o (of the same meaning, and used for it in certain tenses); to stand (transitively or intransitively), used in various applications (literally or figuratively):--abide, appoint, bring, continue, covenant, establish, hold up,
lay, present, set (up), stanch, stand (by, forth, still, up). Compare tiqhmi - tithemi 5087.

Daniel 11:31 And arms shall stand(amad) on his part, and they shall pollute the sanctuary of strength, and shall take away the daily sacrifice, and they shall place the abomination that maketh desolate.

Daniel 11:33 And they that understand among the people shall instruct many: yet they shall fall by the sword, and by flame, by captivity, and by spoil, many days.

This perhaps explains why they should flee to the mountains at the time, because by not doing so, they instead shall fall by the sword, and by flame, by captivity, and by spoil, many days. Compare that with the following in Luke 21 and also in Revelation 11.

Luke 21:24 And they shall fall by the edge of the sword, and shall be led away captive into all nations: and Jerusalem shall be trodden down of the Gentiles, until the times of the Gentiles be fulfilled.

Revelation 11:2 But the court which is without the temple leave out, and measure it not; for it is given unto the Gentiles: and the holy city shall they tread under foot forty and two months.

The following shows that unbelieving Jews are not meant when having to flee to the mountains. Even if the fleeing to the mountains means to literal mountains, it would not be unbelieving Jews that the following would be referring to.

Daniel 11:35 And some of them of understanding shall fall, to try them, and to purge, and to make them white, even to the time of the end: because it is yet for a time appointed.
Daniel 12:10 Many shall be purified, and made white, and tried; but the wicked shall do wickedly: and none of the wicked shall understand; but the wise shall understand.

What I conclude from the above, very little of it, if any at all, is actually involving much of anything literal. No literal mountains to flee to, nor any literal cities and literal temples involved. Unbelieving Jews would not possess the understanding meant here. Nor is it the unbelieving Jews who are being purified, and made white, and tried, it would be those who confess to be members of the church whom this is applying to.

Revelation 18:4 And I heard another voice from heaven, saying, Come out of her, my people, that ye be not partakers of her sins, and that ye receive not of her plagues.

IMO this seems to be the desolation this leads to in the end.

Revelation 18:18 And cried when they saw the smoke of her burning, saying, What city is like unto this great city!
19 And they cast dust on their heads, and cried, weeping and wailing, saying, Alas, alas, that great city, wherein were made rich all that had ships in the sea by reason of her costliness! for in one hour is she made desolate.

But if one insists these prophecies in the Discourse can only be understood properly when taking everything in the literal sense, that person and I will never be on the same page then. Which may or may not be a good thing, depending who is closer to the truth here.

David, never say "never!" Anyway, there are a few good points, although I think you're jumbling up some of the different prophecies. In a sense, though, they do tend to flow together, as you well illustrated. Let me explain.

Yes, the "Holy Place" largely refers to the literal temple under the Law. However, it can refer to a wider area around the temple, including the holy city, Jerusalem. It can also symbolically refer to a heavenly reality, since there is also a temple in heaven. But I wouldn't know, in this case, what the "Holy Place" would be?

You do show a parallel between the "standing in the holy place" with prophecies in Dan 11, which I think refer to Antiochus 4. But I do think that there exists a legitimate parallel between Antiochus 4 in Dan 11, the Roman Army in Luke 21, and the Antichrist in Rev 11. I am not well-equipped to interpret the temple imagery of Rev 11, though.

I do agree that some of this is symbolic. The tough part is in knowing when to take things symbolically, and what the symbols represent.

I personally feel that the prophecies of Antiochus 4, the Roman Army, and the Antichrist are all to be taken literally. But if Antiochus 4 and the Roman Army are symbols of the Antichrist, then we may legitimately see them as symbols. Thanks for your contribution, whether or not we agree!

Re: "standing in the Holy Place?"

Originally Posted by divaD

What puzzles me about someone such as yourself is this. You also being Amil means a lot of things we Premils take literally at times, you don't. And here I am in my last post not taking some things literally that you apparently are, and that I'm not the Amil here, you are. You would think if anyone grasped any the points I was attempting to make in my last post, it would be Amils that would.

That's true. Amils have a symbolic view of the Millennium, and at other times take the "literal" position in interpreting things. But you have to realize that the issue concerns *where* things should be taken symbolically. The Amillennialists find it valuable to focus on a truly regenerate Church, as opposed to what they see as an outmoded "Israel." Why wait for a restored "Israel" in the Millennium when God's interest is right here and right now with the true Church?

Re: "standing in the Holy Place?"

Originally Posted by randyk

JLU, I do believe that Dan 9 speaks of the Roman Army, where in vs. 27 it mentions the "abomination that causes desolation." The 70 Weeks themselves are unbroken, and they do end with the ministry and death of Messiah. However, what follows the 70 Weeks is this "desolation of the city and the sanctuary," brought about by the "people of the prince to come." This is the Roman Army who, in 70 AD, destroyed both Jerusalem and the temple.

In other words, according to Dan 9 the 70th Week ends in a half week, in the 3.5 years of Christ's ministry. He is cut off in the "midst of the Week," indicating that the 70th Week ends in the middle of the Week. It is not long after this that the city and the sanctuary are destroyed, as indicated in vss. 26 and 27. The "abomination that causes desolation," ie the Roman Army, brings this about.

Thats my problem with your view i guess, to me it just does not consider the state of Jerusalem or the "sanctuary" at the time of Daniels prayer.

“O Lord, according to all your righteous acts, let your anger and your wrath turn away from your city Jerusalem, your holy hill, because for our sins, and for the iniquities of our fathers, Jerusalem and your people have become a byword among all who are around us. 17Now therefore, O our God, listen to the prayer of your servant and to his pleas for mercy, and for your own sake, O Lord,b make your face to shine upon your sanctuary, which is desolate. 18O my God, incline your ear and hear. Open your eyes and see our desolations, and the city that is called by your name. For we do not present our pleas before you because of our righteousness, but because of your great mercy. 19O Lord, hear; O Lord, forgive. O Lord, pay attention and act. Delay not, for your own sake, O my God, because your city and your people are called by your name.”

So my question to you is what did the Romans do in 70 Ad the was worse then the desolation in 2Kings 24-25.?

Re: "standing in the Holy Place?"

Originally Posted by Jesuslovesus

Thats my problem with your view i guess, to me it just does not consider the state of Jerusalem or the "sanctuary" at the time of Daniels prayer.

“O Lord, according to all your righteous acts, let your anger and your wrath turn away from your city Jerusalem, your holy hill, because for our sins, and for the iniquities of our fathers, Jerusalem and your people have become a byword among all who are around us. 17Now therefore, O our God, listen to the prayer of your servant and to his pleas for mercy, and for your own sake, O Lord,b make your face to shine upon your sanctuary, which is desolate. 18O my God, incline your ear and hear. Open your eyes and see our desolations, and the city that is called by your name. For we do not present our pleas before you because of our righteousness, but because of your great mercy. 19O Lord, hear; O Lord, forgive. O Lord, pay attention and act. Delay not, for your own sake, O my God, because your city and your people are called by your name.”

So my question to you is what did the Romans do in 70 Ad the was worse then the desolation in 2Kings 24-25.?

I've been dealing with this one for the last few days. Those who have painted me a "preterist" have succeeded in confusing others about my position. Preterists commonly see the 66-70 AD war as the fulfillment of the "great tribulation" Jesus talked about as being the worst in Israel's history (Matt 24.21).

I do *not* hold to this position, nor am I a preterist. I do agree with them that the 66-70 AD war is what Jesus was primarily referring to in his Olivet Address. However, Jesus spoke of something much, much greater than the battles of 66-70 AD. He actually described this time as but the *beginning of sorrows.*

The "great distress" actually encompasses the *entire NT era,* in which the Jews were dispersed by the Romans, leading to an age-long "wandering" of the Jews, away from their land. This is called in history the "Jewish Diaspora." For *length of time* no tribulation in Israel's history has been as great. This is not preterism, but this is precisely what Jesus said in Luke 21.

Luke 21.There will be great distress in the land and wrath against this people. 24 They will fall by the sword and will be taken as prisoners to all the nations. Jerusalem will be trampled on by the Gentiles until the times of the Gentiles are fulfilled.

Re: "standing in the Holy Place?"

Originally Posted by randyk

"standing in the Holy Place"
What did Jesus mean by this statement?
1) the Antichrist will take his seat in God's temple, a rebuilt Jewish temple
2) the Antichrist will in effect declare himself to be God, though not in a physical temple
3) the Roman Army will stand in the gates of Jerusalem, besieging the city
4) the Roman Army actually stood inside Jerusalem, destroying the temple
5) the Romans abused the temple tax
6) the Jewish People abused the temple

Jesus warned that when this event was observed by his disciples, they should flee, or escape.

There are a number of interpretations here, and the discussion has been highly charged at times. It's all been discussed before--lots of times. However, my wish here is to calm the accusations, and recognize that there are a number of ways to look at this--legitimate ways.

I think all 3 views of who the AoD (Abomination that cause Desolation) is have an old history. I think Josephus mentioned the Jewish abuses in the temple prior to 70 AD, amounting to an abomination in the temple. The Church Fathers mentioned both Antichrist and Rome as candidates for the AoD. I personally think the strongest argument, and the earliest one, is that the Roman Army is the AoD. But I stand to be corrected?

The argument I've been personally having concerns the point at which Jesus' disciples were to reconize the AoD "standing in the holy place?" For example, if the Roman Army was to be observed as "standing in the holy place," wouldn't that mean that the Romans had already penetrated the walls, and it was too late to escape?

I really don't know. Perhaps Jesus' disciples in the countryside would have time *after* the 70 AD penetration of the temple to run for the hills? In history, however, when Jesus' disciples saw the Roman Army initially arrive in 66 AD, they were able to escape to Pella *before* the Roman Army entered into Jerusalem proper, and *before* the temple was destroyed. So why would Jesus tell them to wait until they actually entered into the city to escape?

I don't know. It's a good question. However, I don't see how the Antichrist could be in the picture when in the Olivet Discourse the primary focus of Jesus is upon the Jewish People, and upon their imminent fate at the hands of the Romans. The Luke 21 account makes this unmistakeably clear, in my thinking. However, some think that Luke 21 is separate from the same Discourse in Matthew 24 and Mark 13. That is unthinkable to me!

It is also possible, in my thinking, to believe that "standing in the holy place" could refer to a return of the Roman Army to Jerusalem, repositioning themselves as guardians in the city. This would, in a sense, make them take a "stand in the holy place." In other words, they were in the vicinity, assuming their long-held authority *within* the holy city.

There is no question that the pagan Romans were an "abomination" to the Jewish People. And there is no question that they were the ones to "desolate" the city and the sanctuary, as Daniel 9 indicated. So as far as I'm concerned, there is no question that the Roman Army was in fact the AoD in Jesus' Olivet Discourse. But here's one more chance to state your view, if you wish?

Interesting discussion, no doubt. One thing that must happen is we must determine what is the Abomination of Desolation (AoD) first before we can come to a proper understanding. I do not see the AoD as being any Army or any Anti-Christ, I see it as being the False Prophet which places an IMAGE/IDOL in the Temple of God. I also see it as End Times, the major clues lie in Daniel ch. 12. I tend to confuse people here, but its been given to me so I will preach it anyway !! I want to place two verse together below:

Matthew 24:15 When ye therefore shall see the abomination of desolation, spoken of by Daniel the prophet, stand in the holy place, {whoso readeth, let him understand:} 16 Then let them which be in Judaea flee into the mountains:

Daniel 12:11 And from the time that the daily sacrifice shall be taken away, and the abomination that maketh desolate set up, there shall be a thousand two hundred and ninety days. 12 Blessed is he that waiteth, and cometh to the thousand three hundred and five and thirty days.

The last verse I just threw in for later, focus on the 1290. The 1290 is the AoD event not the 1260 in verse 7. Verse 6 is KEY, it says how long shall it be until the END of these Wonders, then verse 7 shows it will be 1260 days from the time the Anti-Christ SCATTERS the Holy peoples power (Conquers Jerusalem/Israel) until everything ends (Jesus' Second Coming). Thus I think each number therefore should be applied to verse 6 also. The AoD has to be 1290 days from the Second Coming and the 1335 has to be an Event 1335 days from the Second Coming. (Two-witnesses show up)

Does this make sense? Of course it does, the Angel told Daniel the AoD happens 30 days before the Anti-Christ Conquers Jerusalem in the Middle of the Week. Jesus thus tells the Jews to FLEE at the AoD (Matt. 24:16) but if that actually happened after the 1260, Jesus would have told them to Flee a the 1260. The 1290 is thus an event that happens 30 days before the Anti-Christ is allowed to come forth. The False Prophet erects AN IMAGE up in the Temple of God.

Rev. 13:14 And deceiveth them that dwell on the earth by the means of those miracles which he had power to do in the sight of the beast; saying to them that dwell on the earth, that they should make an image to the beast, which had the wound by a sword, and did live. 15 And he had power to give life unto the image of the beast, that the image of the beast should both speak, and cause that as many as would not worship the image of the beast should be killed.

I see the AoD as an IDOL/IMAGE of the Beast placed in the Temple by the False Prophet. Thus the Jews actually have 30 days from the time they see this until the Anti-Christ Conquers Jerusalem becoming the Beast to FLEE Judea !! Jesus says it stands where it ought not. When Daniel 9:27 is dissected properly I think it also shows an IMAGE standing in the Temple of God.

Daniel 9:27 And he shall confirm the covenant with many for one week: and in the midst of the week he shall cause the sacrifice and the oblation to cease, and for the overspreading of abominations he shall make it desolate, even until the consummation, and that determined shall be poured upon the desolate.

So looking at these original Hebrew word Translations, what is this verse (Daniel 9:27) really telling us ? Does it match up with other end time events ? Lets delve into it !! Basically this is what I get from verse 27.

Daniel 9:27 The Anti-Christ will FORCE and Agreement (Covenant means agreement) on Israel and others, probably the Muslims/Arabs of the Mediterranean Sea Region. He does so insolently, his agenda prevails, he forces this deal. Then after 3 1/2 years he stops allowing the Oblation or Tribute, (I think an honoring of Jesus, who Israel accepts as their Messiah before the Day of the Lord as it says in Malachi 4:5-6) by Israel unto their God. The False Prophet places an IDOL/IMAGE in a Wing or a pinnacle of the TEMPLE 30 days before the Anti-Christ Conquers Jerusalem and demands all people to worship this IDOL/IMAGE. This Stuns/Shocks OR DEVASTATES Israel, then the ones who REPENTED heed Jesus' words, they Flee unto the Wilderness where they are protected by God for 1260 Days, because Elijah turned them back to the Messiah (Zechariah 12:10) before the Day of the Lord staring at the 1335.

Do further scriptures agree with this account ?

Revelation 13:14-15 above matches this here doesn't it? Its an IMAGE/IDOL that is placed in the Temple of God, its an Image of the European President. We all know Israel has to have REPENTED before this point in time or they would never Flee Judea and go to Petra, those who have repented or accepted Jesus as their Messiah will thus heed his words in Matt. 24 and thus they escape the Anti-Christ when he Conquers Jerusalem/Israel.

We know the AoD is end times because we see in Daniel 12:1-2 that the Saints will be raised from the dead at this time. Micheal STANDS UP in verse 1 and then this........2 And many of them that sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake, some to everlasting life, and some to shame and everlasting contempt.

So its no doubt an End Time Event. The issue to me is understanding the 1260, the 1290 and the 1335.

The 1335 = The Two-witnesses show up to turn Israel back unto God. Its a BLESSING !!

The 1290 = the Abomination of Desolation

The 1260 = The Anti-Christ Conquering the Holy People/Jerusalem/Israel.

My VOTE would be for an IMAGE/IDOL standing in the Temple of God where it ought not to stand.